800N Plastrons mandatory by 2006?

Found this:

"From 1st January 2006, if you are doing electric foil fencing, or ANY epee or
sabre fencing, you MUST have an 800NW plastron. This applies for club use as
well as for competitions. If you fence these weapons using a 350NW or un-marked
plastron, you will be breaking the BFA rules and therefore will not be eligible
to claim insurance if you suffer an injury whilst fencing."

at:
http://www.union.ic.ac.uk/acc/fencin...ying_guide.php

Is it true? Will I really not be insured fencing at my club without an 800NW
plastron? I'm kind of sceptical about it 'cos they cost £40 and it doesn't seem
logical to force clubs to splash out on that kind of money considering the tiny
risks involved in not wearing one. Has this website got the wrong end of the
stick?

Hi all,

I have always wondered why the Newton unit is printed as "NW" on fencing
equipment?!

"NW" translates to "Newton Watts", which just doesn't make any sense. The
correct abbreviation for the Newton force unit is N.
See http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionar...n%20%28unit%29 for
reference.

Also, can anyone elaborate on what 800 N (or 800 NW ;-) amounts to when
taking the point of an epee and typical weight of your opponent into
consideration, as I have also pondered on this issue more than once?

Best regards
Michael, Denmark

In article <c1nfhj$1uti$1@news.cybercity.dk>,
"Michael F. S. Christensen" <michael@steensgaards.invaliddk> wrote:

> Also, can anyone elaborate on what 800 N (or 800 NW ;-) amounts to when
> taking the point of an epee and typical weight of your opponent into
> consideration, as I have also pondered on this issue more than once?


The more important question is what it amounts to when taking the point
of a broken epee blade and typical opponen'ts weight.

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

>
> The more important question is what it amounts to when taking the point
> of a broken epee blade and typical opponen'ts weight.
>
> --Harold Buck
>

There's an interesting thread on this topic in this newsgroup, refer
to 800 Newton discussion from 1995-05-18.

Anybody know if a study or root cause analysis has ever been done on
puncture wounds in fencing? Personally I think there are several
factors working with each other: blades nearing their end of life (and
the fencer not knowing or ignoring this); uncontrolled fencing
(combination of fencers using too much force and being too excited to
notice a broken blade until it is too late); and masks, jackets, or
knickers that are worn out or not fitting properly.

Also, my first fencing instructor, Harold Hayes, taught me to hit so
that after the touch, my hand would go up away from the mask and
shoulder, or down and away from the abdomen and leg. With this method,
if my blade snapped, the remainder would not wind up going through
someone.

Also here's an injury prevention guide at
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/athletics...y/fencsaf.html .

Thanks!

Mitch

In article <c1m2i4$cfn$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, Mark Thompson
<pleasegivegenerously@warmmail.com> writes
>Found this:
>
>"From 1st January 2006, if you are doing electric foil fencing, or ANY epee or
>sabre fencing, you MUST have an 800NW plastron. This applies for club use as
>well as for competitions. If you fence these weapons using a 350NW or un-marked
>plastron, you will be breaking the BFA rules and therefore will not be eligible
>to claim insurance if you suffer an injury whilst fencing."
>
>at:
>http://www.union.ic.ac.uk/acc/fencin...ying_guide.php
>
>Is it true? Will I really not be insured fencing at my club without an 800NW
>plastron? I'm kind of sceptical about it 'cos they cost £40 and it
>doesn't seem
>logical to force clubs to splash out on that kind of money considering the tiny
>risks involved in not wearing one. Has this website got the wrong end of the
>stick?
>
>

The standards (which are local to the UK) are stated at
http://www.britishfencing.com/safetystandards.htm

They seem pretty clear. I've been telling our adult club fencers for 18
months now: if you buy a plastron, you want a full FIE (800N) standard,
not the CEN 1 version.

Whether it's true that you will "...not be eligible to claim
insurance..." is probably a matter to discuss with your broker or legal
advisor. My view is that the real question is, whether the FIE standard
significantly reduces the risk? It's a bit like a car seatbelt: low
probability of occurrence but high value of the asset at risk.

On the cost issue, we're probably lucky that the committee that drafted
the rules didn't require full FIE jackets and breeches as well. It's a
compromise. For FIE A-grade competitions, you have to have full FIE kit
(as also for UK veterans competitions); but of course, the risk of
damage there is higher.

It's worth pointing out that the FIE kit has some everyday advantages
too. Being a little thicker and stronger, it reduces bruising.

Regards,
Tim S.

> Whether it's true that you will "...not be eligible to claim
> insurance..." is probably a matter to discuss with your broker or legal
> advisor. My view is that the real question is, whether the FIE standard
> significantly reduces the risk? It's a bit like a car seatbelt: low
> probability of occurrence but high value of the asset at risk.

I was wondering how risky fencing is - deaths seem rather rare but I've no idea
of the injuries. Anyone know how it compares to other sports? Wondering
whether insisting on 800N/NW plastrons is a bit like mandatory helmet laws for
riding a bicycle - walking is more dangerous in both absolute and relative terms
but it's the safer activity that gets singled out simply because it /seems/ more
dangerous.

In article <c1ovca$qep$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>,
"Mark Thompson" <pleasegivegenerously@warmmail.com (change warm for
hot)> wrote:

> > Whether it's true that you will "...not be eligible to claim
> > insurance..." is probably a matter to discuss with your broker or legal
> > advisor. My view is that the real question is, whether the FIE standard
> > significantly reduces the risk? It's a bit like a car seatbelt: low
> > probability of occurrence but high value of the asset at risk.
>
> I was wondering how risky fencing is - deaths seem rather rare but I've no
> idea
> of the injuries. Anyone know how it compares to other sports? Wondering
> whether insisting on 800N/NW plastrons is a bit like mandatory helmet laws
> for
> riding a bicycle - walking is more dangerous in both absolute and relative
> terms
> but it's the safer activity that gets singled out simply because it /seems/
> more
> dangerous.

Huh? Walking is more dangerous than riding a bike? Please explain.

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

In article <c1q1ma$tkv$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>,
"Mark Thompson" <pleasegivegenerously@warmmail.com (change warm for
hot)> wrote:

> > Huh? Walking is more dangerous than riding a bike? Please explain.
>
> I was mildly surprised too. Follow
> http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBAS...eets/D6536.xls
>
> for the numbers.
>


Your link doesn't work for me.

Anyway, I can think of a million ways to misrepresent the statistics to
make it seem like walking is more dangerous, but I can't think of any
valid ways to do it.

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

> Your link doesn't work for me.
>
> Anyway, I can think of a million ways to misrepresent the statistics to
> make it seem like walking is more dangerous, but I can't think of any
> valid ways to do it.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBas...&ColRank=1&Ran
k=272

Sorry, try this one - the one I posted before needed excel.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.596 / Virus Database: 379 - Release Date: 26/02/2004

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> In rec.sport.fencing on Fri, 27 Feb 2004 20:12:13 -0800
> Jonathan Jefferies <jonathanjefferies@alamedanet.net> wrote:
>
>>But as a general technique I think most fencers
>>try to touch rather than drive the blade through.
>
> Interesting... My fencing master - definitely trained with and used to
> electric kit - always teaches to drive it in.
>
> But he's very old fashioned...
>
> Zebee

Caveat: My experience is strictly with epee.
It may be the training, but I've noticed that the more
skilled fencers are able to flick, lunge, thrust, poke etc
fast but touch lightly. In tournaments it's always
surprising how lightly the top rank guys touch,
Eric Hansen, Seth Kelsey, Cody Mattern,
Keith Lichten to name those I've recent recollections of.
Part of it may also be that they are always
preparing for the next move and if you are driving
it in then you're way over committed.

Jonathan

Mark Thompson wrote:
>>Huh? Walking is more dangerous than riding a bike? Please explain.
>
>
> I was mildly surprised too. Follow
> http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBAS...eets/D6536.xls
>

Ah well, you will notice it is per billion passenger kilometers.
If I'm walking and I have a passenger I'd probably do them in every
couple of billion kilometers too. Lazy sods. But you'll notice
that motorcycles are at the very top of the heap in the UK death
watch. Considering that they "HAVE" to ride in wet weather and
most of them take pride in being "nutters" it's understandable.
The UK is the only place that I've ever seen a rest stop with
facilities for bikers to clean their helmet shields.

J.

> > I was mildly surprised too. Follow
> > http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBAS...eets/D6536.xls
> >
>
> Ah well, you will notice it is per billion passenger kilometers.
> If I'm walking and I have a passenger I'd probably do them in every
> couple of billion kilometers too. Lazy sods.

The per billion figure shows you how safe getting about is, but note that this
is only for people in (on) the vehicle - the deaths per km for cars will be a
bit higher in reality as a lot of those cyclists and walkers are killed by them.
The use of 'passenger' is strange, but then that's the British for you. Rest
assured that the totals for walking and cycling are not limited to those killed
while being given a piggy back, or the person on the back of the tandem!


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.596 / Virus Database: 379 - Release Date: 26/02/2004

On 27 Feb 2004 17:05:18 -0800, mkief@msn.com (Mitch Kief) wrote:

>>
>> The more important question is what it amounts to when taking the point
>> of a broken epee blade and typical opponen'ts weight.
>>
>> --Harold Buck
>>
>
>There's an interesting thread on this topic in this newsgroup, refer
>to 800 Newton discussion from 1995-05-18.
>
>Anybody know if a study or root cause analysis has ever been done on
>puncture wounds in fencing? Personally I think there are several
>factors working with each other: blades nearing their end of life (and
>the fencer not knowing or ignoring this); uncontrolled fencing
>(combination of fencers using too much force and being too excited to
>notice a broken blade until it is too late); and masks, jackets, or
>knickers that are worn out or not fitting properly.
>
>Also, my first fencing instructor, Harold Hayes, taught me to hit so
>that after the touch, my hand would go up away from the mask and
>shoulder, or down and away from the abdomen and leg. With this method,
>if my blade snapped, the remainder would not wind up going through
>someone.

The problem is that most blade breaks happen *far* too fast for that
method to work.

Here's the situation: a fencer attacks, his blade hits, bends, breaks
and the remaining part of the blade springs forward and hits again. If
that second hit is to a relatively unprotected area, or if the broken
piece is sharp, then the chance of injury or death is pretty high.
That's how Vladimir Smirnov was killed in 1982, that's how an unnamed
Bristsh fencer was killed in 1984 and I expect that's how Gille Malet
was killed in 1994, etc.

This hit-bend-break-hit again happens in a fraction of a second; far
too quickly for most humans to react to.

-Chris Zakes
Texas

"Well, I've wrestled with reality for thirty-five years, Doctor, and I'm
happy to state I finally won out over it."

-Elwood P. Dowd in "Harvey"

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 02:45:10 -0000, "Mark Thompson"
<pleasegivegenerously@warmmail.com (change warm for hot)> wrote:

>> Whether it's true that you will "...not be eligible to claim
>> insurance..." is probably a matter to discuss with your broker or legal
>> advisor. My view is that the real question is, whether the FIE standard
>> significantly reduces the risk? It's a bit like a car seatbelt: low
>> probability of occurrence but high value of the asset at risk.
>
>I was wondering how risky fencing is - deaths seem rather rare but I've no idea
>of the injuries. Anyone know how it compares to other sports?

http://www.exra.org/FencingChptr.htm has a lot of data on injuries
related to fencing. The vast majority of them have nothing to do with
broken blades.


>Wondering
>whether insisting on 800N/NW plastrons is a bit like mandatory helmet laws for
>riding a bicycle - walking is more dangerous in both absolute and relative terms
>but it's the safer activity that gets singled out simply because it /seems/ more
>dangerous.

Yes and no. According to statistics you're more likely to be struck by
lightning while playing golf than killed with a broken fencing blade
(and *far* more likely to be hurt or killed in a car wreck than in
either sport.) On the other hand, does anybody recall the Russian
fencer at the 1980(?) Olympics who was badly injured by a broken
blade? That one incident gave the sport a tremendous amount of
negative publicity. A couple of years later, I was hearing stories
from non-fencers about how "two or three people a year are killed in
fencing accidents in the U.S."

-Chris Zakes
Texas

"Well, I've wrestled with reality for thirty-five years, Doctor, and I'm
happy to state I finally won out over it."

-Elwood P. Dowd in "Harvey"

On the other hand, does anybody recall the Russian fencer at the 1980(?)
Olympics who was badly injured by a broken blade
=====
Like, killed.

B.C. Milligan

On 01 Mar 2004 03:02:49 GMT, remise@aol.com (Rufus T. Firefly) wrote:

>On the other hand, does anybody recall the Russian fencer at the 1980(?)
>Olympics who was badly injured by a broken blade
>=====
>Like, killed.
>
>B.C. Milligan


Are you sure of that? My information says that the Russian was injured
by a Polish fencer, but not killed. Maybe you're confusing him with
Vladimir Smirnov, who was killed at the 1982 World Championships?

-Chris Zakes
Texas

"Well, I've wrestled with reality for thirty-five years, Doctor, and I'm
happy to state I finally won out over it."

-Elwood P. Dowd in "Harvey"

In article <c1qdh9$9i6$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>,
"Mark Thompson" <pleasegivegenerously@warmmail.com (change warm for
hot)> wrote:

> > Your link doesn't work for me.
> >
> > Anyway, I can think of a million ways to misrepresent the statistics to
> > make it seem like walking is more dangerous, but I can't think of any
> > valid ways to do it.
>
> http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBas...s=&ColRank=1&R
> an
> k=272
>
> Sorry, try this one - the one I posted before needed excel.


The only thing there that could maybe be interpreted to say walking is
more dangerous than cycling is this:

"In 2002, 23 per cent of those killed were pedestrians, 4 per cent pedal
cyclists, 18 per cent riders or passengers of two-wheeled motor
vehicles, and 51 per cent occupants of cars."

However, this does NOT take account of the fact that people spend a HELL
of a lot more time walking than cycling. On a per hour basis, I'd be
willing to bet cycling is a lot more dangerous than walking.

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBas...&ColRank=1&Ran
k=272

> The only thing there that could maybe be interpreted to say walking is
> more dangerous than cycling is this:
>
> "In 2002, 23 per cent of those killed were pedestrians, 4 per cent pedal
> cyclists, 18 per cent riders or passengers of two-wheeled motor
> vehicles, and 51 per cent occupants of cars."
>
> However, this does NOT take account of the fact that people spend a HELL
> of a lot more time walking than cycling. On a per hour basis, I'd be
> willing to bet cycling is a lot more dangerous than walking.

hmm, I disagree. For transport using the per km is IMO (and those of the
British government, it would seem) the more valid way of looking at things.
Time of exposure would be incredibly misleading - very slow but very dangerous
'per trip' means of transport would appear much safer than they really are. I
can't find a similar problem with the per km measurement for methods of
transportation.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.601 / Virus Database: 382 - Release Date: 29/02/2004

In article <c2cjus$kvn$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>,
"Mark Thompson" <pleasegivegenerously@warmmail.com (change warm for
hot)> wrote:

> hmm, I disagree. For transport using the per km is IMO (and those of the
> British government, it would seem) the more valid way of looking at things.
> Time of exposure would be incredibly misleading - very slow but very dangerous
> 'per trip' means of transport would appear much safer than they really are. I
> can't find a similar problem with the per km measurement for methods of
> transportation.


I didn't see the "per KM" table before as it was a link at the bottom.
Looking at "per KM" fatalities, the safest form of transport is a NASA
flight to the moon. This is why airlines like to use this metric: it
makes them look better. In general, faster transport is going to look
better based on this metric.

OTOH, helmets make a lot more sense for cycling than walking, since it's
far more likely to do you some good in cycling.

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

Note: have marked thread as OT cos, well, it is :-)

> > hmm, I disagree. For transport using the per km is IMO (and those of the
> > British government, it would seem) the more valid way of looking at things.
> > Time of exposure would be incredibly misleading - very slow but very
dangerous
> > 'per trip' means of transport would appear much safer than they really are.
I
> > can't find a similar problem with the per km measurement for methods of
> > transportation.
>
>
> I didn't see the "per KM" table before as it was a link at the bottom.
> Looking at "per KM" fatalities, the safest form of transport is a NASA
> flight to the moon. This is why airlines like to use this metric: it
> makes them look better. In general, faster transport is going to look
> better based on this metric.

You're right, the per km measurement is incredibly misleading for those methods
of transport that have relatively risky 'stages' but cover long distances where
not much is likely to go wrong. Cycling, like walking, is not one of these.

> OTOH, helmets make a lot more sense for cycling than walking, since it's
> far more likely to do you some good in cycling.

And your basis for that claim is?


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.614 / Virus Database: 393 - Release Date: 06/03/2004